I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

The Obama SOTU Conundrum-Will It Be Debt Or Investment?

The real Republican response to the President’s State of the Union address did not come from the parched lips of Florida Senator Marco Rubio—the latest in a long line of GOP sacrificial lambs to follow the SOTU with campaign style complaints and endless stories of personal hardship that do little to actually address any of the proposals put forth by the President.

Nor did we get anything of value from Rand Paul’s barely viewed, Tea-Party directed rant.

The true GOP response to last night’s address came from the mouth of last year’s Republican post-SOTU orator, Rep. Paul Ryan.

In a succinct response to the Obama address delivered during a post-game interview on CNN, Ryan noted that there was much to like in the President’s speech—including proposals to close tax code loopholes that would help raise money for the nation’s treasury. What troubled Congressman Ryan was his concern that the money raised by closing the loopholes in the tax code would be spent in the pursuit of new government programs rather than being put to work in the effort to pay down our deficit.

Ryan’s’ comments were far more on point and responsive to the actual SOTU address than those of the water swilling Rubio and managed to get to the real heart of the matter—something Rubio never came close to accomplishing.

At this point, I should probably point out what will come as a surprise to absolutely no one and reveal that I responded well to the agenda laid out by the President in last night’s annual tradition. It was, after all, a veritable laundry list of actions designed to appeal to the hearts of liberals—like me—everywhere.

Nevertheless, Paul Ryan’s observation that the President may have come up short on the subject of deficits is not an unfair one—even if it speaks to only one half of the story.

While Mr. Obama went to some pains to cover the importance of continuing to work toward reducing our burgeoning debt through a combination of cuts in Medicare coupled with closing the tax loopholes, his speech would have greatly benefitted from devoting additional time to a more honest appraisal of what is required to get serious about deficit cutting and the realities we face in regard to the same.

The President was correct in his assertion that we have already reduced the deficit by some $2.5 trillion. And while Obama opponents are never quite comfortable acknowledging this accomplishment, it is, nonetheless, true and a fact supported in the report issued early this week by the highly respected, bi-partisan Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). More on what the CRFB had to say in a moment.

Where things got a bit dicey in last night’s speech began with the President’s suggestion that we need only cut an additional $1.4 trillion over the next ten years to reach financial stability—a figure that fails to tell the entire story about what is in store for us without some real work to reduce the debt and may, in and of itself, be less than an accurate representation of what is required to meet even the President’s accepted standard of fiscal stability.

As Mr. Obama noted, there are, indeed, economists who have suggested that a total of $4 trillion in cuts—$2.5 trillion of which have already been accomplished—would put us at a debt to GDP ratio of 70 percent by 2023, thereby stabilizing the debt for the next ten years or so.

However, other objective analysts, including the CRFB, put the number closer to $2.4 trillion of additional cuts that would be necessary to get us through 2023 on a trajectory that would represent turning our upwardly trending deficit in the other direction.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Yet, incredibly, the Democrats and liberal concern about the unborn future citizens does not keep them from aborting by the millions potential citizens of the day.

Yes, scratch the President’s SOTU and you will find that President Obama believes that somehow man can control the climate. That part of his speech alone will most likely cost the middle class billions in future tax payments and also force more jobs overseas where they pretend they care about the environment.

Also fascinating was his belief that the government getting their hands on children earlier will somehow lead them to better life. With many public school systems in utter failure around the country I don’t see how anyone can say that with a straight face.

However, to get to that PreK the fetus has to run the gauntlet of the abortion mills, many financed with federal funds.

Incredibly though, I find myself agreeing with Rick Ungar on this note. We are led by a trifecta of perpetual political lip sync. No solutions from either side which have any impact.

What we face is simply more recycled central planning which has failed in all its forms anywhere it has been tried.

The current GOP’s concern for the unborn is admirable – but once born, all bets are off. Any program that helps low-income parents are not welcome by the GOP even though studies have shown that early intervention in child development (which requires money up front) saves us in the long run. (google it).

I wasn’t wowwed by the SOTU address — it seemed more like “this is what I want.” And because of the divisiveness in our congress (thnx TeaPublicans), seems nothing will get done.

The president claimed that “both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion.” But that’s only an estimate of deficit reduction through fiscal year 2022, and it would be lower if the White House used a different starting point. None of which addresses the continually increasing DEBT we’re in, which will cripple the nation.

Its not a matter of whether we’re looking at debt or investment. We’re already deeply in debt. And all the deficit spendi – er – investment by this administration has only resulted in the most anemic recovery since the Great Depression.

Why does it seem that “let the private sector take care it” is never an option? And I don’t mean “let the private sector take care of it, so long as we can regulate them within an inch of their lives, and decide which of them will be winners or losers by giving our brother-in-laws… er… deserving companies our tax dollars.” I mean genuinely let the private sector have a shot at figuring it out. Why does the left only ever frame the question in a way that demands the government grow more and more and assumes only some bloated, out of touch bureaucracy can take care of it?

are you surprised? Rick Ungar belongs on MSNBC, he is a total hack. Oh yes Rick, the GOP has a hard time admitting that Obama has cut the deficit by $2.5 trillion. We have a tough time with it because it’s a complete lie.

On April 16th, 2012 Obama officially put the country further into debt than Bush did…DURING BUSH’S ENTIRE 2 TERM PRESIDENCY. OBAMA RACKED UP MORE DEBT BEFORE THE END OF HIS FIRST TERM.

The Obama recovery is worse than the Bush recession, there is no economic measure that Obama has improved compared to Bush. Go to the bureau of labor statistics.

Rick Ungar is the whacko partisan, not the tea party or the true conservatives. See Rick looks at a poll and thinks because a majority of the country is low information and still blames Bush for the economy, it makes it a fact. Then, he gets really made when somebody challenges him and says their mean or an extremist.

Except that I don’t work on MSNBC. I work at Fox News. Hmmm…. But I LOVE that if I were a member of the tea party or a ‘true conservative’ -like you would even know one if you saw one- then I wouldn’t be a ‘whacko partisan’. Seriously, your stuff has devolved to the point where it no longer bears reading. This is what happens. Someone who disagrees starts out with intelligent and debatable disagreement where the readers can learn something through the dialogue. Then I give them some attention and they turn into..well…you. Easy fix for that. No more attention.

Why are we talking about the deficit? Who cares? It is a non-problem likely to fix itself.

What we need to talk about is jobs and increasing our economy’s growth rate. We need government spending right now. We need a lot of government spending right now. We need cities, counties, states, and the Federal government to all go on big spending binges. Damn the deficit, full spending ahead!

If one had a patient with a bleeding gun-shot wound and also prostate cancer, the conversation would not be about possible prostate cancer treatments. We have millions of people in this country unemployed and most of those having suffered long-term unemployment. We need jobs programs, preferably direct hiring by the feds, just like the CCC, the CWA, the PWA, and the WPA. We need to get people back to work in this country and, if we don’t, the deficit won’t matter a rat’s behind.

If there is one unforgivable act by the Republican Party and its elected members is their mindless, foolish obsession with the deficit — something they didn’t care a whit about until January 20, 2009 — combined with their total disregard for the unemployed in this country. I am loath to write this as a loyal and life-long Democrat, but my party has betrayed its very principals and turned its back on its core constituency by not passing jobs programs, though the Dems at least pay some lip service to joblessness. Republicans are, however, actively hostile to saving this country from the disaster of long-term unemployment.

Don’t waste another pixel on deficit discussions until we have an economy growing at 4% and a real unemployment rate to match.

Ah, well if you don’t agree with Krugman, then that is truly where we part company. I would love a column where you explain why. Krugman’s thoughts are well documented and well-sourced.

I think if you’d lost your job four years ago and still hadn’t found another one, having gone through 99 weeks of unemployment; lost your savings, retirement accounts, and good credit rating, along with your home and your car; filed bankruptcy, but still unable to make ends meet; and knowing you are unlikely, at your age, to ever work again, that you might feel differently about the deficit versus unemployment.

Rick, honestly, if you can point to one human being harmed by the deficit right now, today, we can talk. Otherwise, I am pointing to ten million or so Americans whose lives have been utterly and completely ruined by long-term unemployment about which this country has effectively done nothing at all. Tell them why the deficit matters more than unemployment.

For starters, I never set up the construct of suggesting that deficit is more important than unemployment. And my disagreement with Krugman has nothing to do with that- he is of the opinion that the deficit does not represent a real problem and I disagree. I also think that there is some responsibility to think beyond just today. Maybe that comes with the perspective of having grandchildren.

“The answers have to come through recognizing we need both investments in the country and a program to reduce the deficit. Only then can we reasonably prioritize what must be sacrificed on the spending side and added to the revenue side to reach a balance that will preserve the future of the nation.”

NO, this is completely wrong. Why do we need a program to reduce the deficit? Rick, I know you stick to the playbook but c’mon dude. Secondly, we cannot keep spending (you used investment as a code word) and reduce the deficit, it makes no sense.

Giving rich green donors money to make green cars has proven to be a total failure. Raising the minimum wage will lead to higher unemployment, so the government will have less tax revenue, and we will have more Ungars complaining that people aren’t taxed enough. Simply amazing.